Captured from the Greens in Alberta Facebook page on 5 August 2009
in
the nick of time:

‘2009-Aug-05: Massive clean-up of the off-topic posts that had cluttered
up this group. Any further off-topic discussions (including discussion
of the recently deregistered provincial party) will be subject to
removal and the individuals posting off-topic may be removed from the
group.’

According to a concerned member of the Greens in Alberta
Facebook group, ‘Apparently we were hitting too close to the truth. I
see that the administrator of the Greens in Alberta group, a close
personal friend of Mr. Crowe, has pulled the entire discussion off the
site.’

I met with Anglin
twice now, and I have talked to him extensively on the telephone. He is
personable, very candid and quite believable.

I decided to start a
new room for this subject because the information I am going to present
is quite lengthy. In fact the information is so lengthy that I am going
to present it in multiple posts.

I asked Anglin if he
wanted to read my assessment of his position and he said it wasn’t
necessary. He did say he would be willing to meet with anyone to answer
questions.

When I first met up
with Anglin in Edson, he was finishing up a meeting with a couple of
lawyers. Apparently Anglin works with a number of lawyers on a number of
legal and social justice issues. Before these lawyers departed, I got a
sense that they were fully informed of what has been happening with the
Alberta Greens. One of them joked to Anglin and asked him just how much
evidence of defamation he needed? I sense these lawyers were having fun
mocking some of the outrageous derogative remarks made on this Facebook
page.

I only mention this
as a caution to all the comments that may follow my posts.

As you read my posts,
I can verify that I have read every document given to me. I was allowed
to make some copies under the condition that I agreed to not share the
copies. Anglin said if someone wanted copies of any documents they had
to meet with him just as I did. As best as I can ascertain, the
following posts are Anglin’s view of the events that so many here have
not talked to him about.

Anglin’s only request
of me, is to not defend his position or opinion. He said if you have a
question for him, he is more than willing to meet with you to answer
questions.

I have supported and
voted for the Green Party in the past because I believe in the
fundamental principles and philosophies of the party. I chose to do my
own investigation of the Alberta Greens’ deregistration solely because I
wanted to satisfy myself that everything was being done to save the
party. If I could help save the party I was willing to do whatever
needed to be done.

It is with much
regret that I am presenting my finding concerning deregistration of the
party, on this Facebook page. I do so with some trepidation, because as
I believe, these conversations should never have been posted on a public
forum in the first place. In my opinion, on September 28, 2008 the old
executive and the new executive should have sat down, for as long as it
was necessary, to arrive at a compromise in the best interest of the
party and its membership. There were multiple options available to both
sides, and it appears to me that pride and self-interest contributed to
immature actions that blinded everyone and destroyed the Alberta Greens
beyond repair.

I hesitate to make
the following comments because I do not want to contribute to the
denigration of any single individual or group. In my opinion that has
already been done, and there has been far too much animosity and hatred
already expressed, yet some, particularly on this website do not seem to
have satisfied their appetite and crave still more.

As I have previously
stated I read David Crowe’s webpage and I have read Grant Neufeld’s
webpage. Each page is an interpretation of the events as they understand
it and have so eloquently explained. I have read every post on this
Facebook page and I have been privy to reading all the posts, after
September 27th on the Alberta Greens website, prior to its removal. I
needed to get Anglin’s perspective before I could evaluate or even begin
to understand the course of events that led to demise of the Alberta
Greens. Most importantly, I wanted to see documents, empirical evidence
so to speak, that could substantiate or support an explanation.
Fortunately, Anglin has detailed records including documents, letters
and several tape recordings of various executive board meetings and
phone conversations.

My findings are as
objective as one possibly can claim under the circumstances, and my
conclusions are my own opinion and offered as a possibility, as opposed
to an accusation.

I’ll begin with by
stating that I find the behaviour and actions of both factions, the old
and new executive in this dispute reprehensible. In my opinion no one
person can claim complete innocence and some individuals may be less
guilty than others. However, everyone of both the new and old executive
is partially responsibility for the demise of the Alberta Greens.

I spoke with Anglin
at length, and I have now met with him to view some of the documents he
referred to in our conversation. He refuses to participate in a public
discussion of this Facebook page, and in hindsight I can see his point,
but I still believe his decision, particularly early on, not to engage
with members publically on Facebook was fundamentally wrong. He does say
he is willing to meet with anyone to discuss and answer questions.

With all the
bantering going on in the press and on this Facebook page there appears
only be three relevant issues: democratic process, the transfer of the
financial information, and the deregistration of the party. Writing from
my notes I am going to give Anglin’s explanation to the questions I
posed to him. I gathered and arrived at these questions from various
conversations and posting by the old executive on the internet, and from
my conversation with Anglin.

I read Lawrence
Porter’s recently posted statement on democracy on this site to Anglin,
and he agrees with Lawrence’s definition. Where he differs with some
opinions posted here, in the matter of the democratic process, Anglin
says “The pot is calling the kettle black. What the old executive is
accusing me of doing is exactly what they do and have been doing”.

Anglin claims he
asked for a meeting with George Read in June and July of 2008 and
expressed his concerns about George’s leadership. Anglin showed me
e-mails to and from Read setting up the meetings and a report later
drafted by Read confirming the meetings took place. Anglin claims he
made his intentions clear to Read, and just in case his intentions were
not conveyed properly, he requested to attend an executive meeting to
explain his intentions. I read three e-mails confirming that Anglin
request to attend the executive meeting on the Sept 22nd. The e-mails
were sent to George Read, David Crowe, and Susan Stratton. In a response
to Anglin’s e-mail, Stratton denied Anglin access to the executive
meeting, even though the Alberta Greens constitution at the time clearly
states all meetings and activities are open to all members.

I listened to a tape
recording of the September 22nd executive meeting and in it I identified
Susan Stratton and Peter Johnson laughing over the fact that Stratton
denied Anglin access to the meeting. Later in the recording Crowe
suggested that the motions being submitted to the AGM should be
addressed in order. Oldershaw objected to this suggestion because
Anglin’s motion arrived approximately three weeks early, which would
make his the first motion considered. The conversation that ensued
clearly discussed options to prevent both Anglin’s
and Erickson’s motions from being presented to the floor of the AGM. In
this meeting Oldershaw insisted that only directive motions should be
considered and all constitutional motions should be deferred to another
time.

Anglin
challenged me to find a definition of a directive motion in Robert’s
Rules of Order, and I can honestly say I cannot find any mention or
definition of a directive motion in Robert’s Rules of Order.

Anglin
claims that if he is guilty of stacking the meeting, which he denies
then the former executive is guilty of attempting the same offense.
Anglin admits he asked his constituents to attend the AGM at their
August constituency meeting for the purpose of affecting change. Anglin
showed me an e-mail from Oldershaw and several Facebook posting from
other sources, seeking to do the same, by asking people to attend the
AGM to oppose Anglin’s motion.

Anglin
claims the biggest problem at this point was the lack of communication
and lack of willingness to sit down and talk before the AGM.

I read
several e-mails where Anglin wrote Crowe, Johnson, Stratton and Read and
requested to talk. I read a Sept 24th e-mail to Crowe, Stratton, and
Johnson where Anglin proposed to delay any leadership race until the
regularly scheduled leadership race in 2009. Anglin’s said his proposal
would only have been necessary if the leadership review motion passed
and only then if a review was called, and only then if Read failed the
leadership review. Anglin believes that Read would not have failed a
leadership review had he stayed at the AGM.

Anglin
claims the accusations accusing him of an undemocratic hostile take-over
of the party and changing the name of the party are absolutely false.
Anglin claims the September 27, 2008 AGM was duly called and constituted
according to the Alberta Greens constitution. The former executive set
the rules, the date, the location, and properly announced the AGM. An
announcement by the former executive in July and the week prior to the
AGM stated “only those who attend will be able to vote”. Anglin claims
he had no input into any of these decisions. He claims he followed the
rules the former executive set. He says no name change was ever proposed
or discussed at the meeting.

Anglin
gave me several e-mails to read, dated before the September 27th AGM,
where Anglin disagreed with Erickson, and where Anglin told Erickson he
would not support any attempt to change the name of the party or to
change the principles of the party. I read an e-mail sent by Anglin to
the entire executive on September 23rd trying to clarify his position on
this matter.

I read
a press release sent on Sept 26, 2008 where Anglin announce to the press
there was no motion being submitted to change the name of the party.

Answering allegations of a hostile take-over, Anglin states that he
supported the nominations of four new people to the executive board and
two additional nominations for re-electing existing members. Technically
speaking Anglin says Erickson was a former member of the Executive
Board, but he does not include him in the existing member category
because Erickson was running for new position. The point Anglin made to
me was that he supported and voted for Crowe and Burman, and the
election of four new members out of a nine member board. Anglin states
the board could be considered a ten member board if Ross Adshead’s
position as inter-regional coordinator had been counted as a board
member. He says he doesn’t understand how the election of four new
people to a nine or ten member board can be considered a hostile
take-over.

Anglin
claims that the issue of democratic fairness revolves around the agreed
upon rules governing the democratic process. Anglin says if he is guilty
of manipulating the process, what does that say about the people who
would hold a secret meeting in the parking lot, or the people who would
conspire to manipulate to prevent legally submitted motions from being
voted on at the AGM? Anglin states that what he did was completely
constitutional. He says allegations of conducting an immoral democratic
process have to be applied to both sides of the equation, or not at all.
And if the process is deemed an immoral process, someone needs to direct
questions to the people who designed the process. Anglin claims he was
just adapting to the rules set by others.

Anglin
provided me with over a dozen e-mails, dated from September 28, 2009
through the first week in October. In these e-mails Anglin pleads with
various former executive members to enter into talks and negotiations,
for the purpose of finding a compromise. I read e-mails Anglin sent to
Harvey Holloway, Larry Ashmore, Fred Clemens, Valerie Kennedy and Sean
Maw asking if they could help mediate in a process to open lines of
communications between the old and the new executive.

I read
a letter from Anglin’s lawyer, Kurata dated September 28, 2008 addressed
to George Read. This letter has been the subject of a number of
allegations and misinterpretations. The letter asked both sides to seek
out an independent mediator. The letter was not a law suit or a threat
of a law suit as some have claimed.

On
September 29th Sean Maw proposed a general meeting with all members.
Crowe e-mailed Sean Maw on September 30th rejecting Sean Maw’s proposal
stating “I will not be responding to your emails on this subject. I do
not believe that you have a role to play.”

Anglin
claims he attempted to make one particular offer by telephoning Maw and
asking Maw to relay an offer. Anglin’s offer proposed that he and Read
both resign and have the party call a leadership race. Anglin further
proposed that if this was acceptable he (Anglin) would not run for the
leadership. Anglin told me that he had complete trust in Maw to deliver
the offer. I listened to a taped recorded conference call where Anglin’s
offer was discussed by the former executive and it was proposed at that
meeting to proceed with the already decided upon re-do of the AGM on
November 29, 2008. Anglin interpreted this decision as a complete
rejection of his offer.

Anglin
says that after he became informed that the former executive were
attempting to re-do the AGM on the 29th of November, he opposed it on
number constitutional and legal grounds. Referring back to his earlier
statement of the “pot calling the kettle black” Anglin claims that the
former executive selectively communicated with certain members of the
Alberta Greens, while excluding other members from notice. Anglin showed
me several communications with his constituents that indicated that many
of them were being excluded from notice of the November 29th meeting. I
also read some e-mails from various individuals who support Anglin, who
received notice from David Crowe that their membership had expired, even
though they had purchased a membership within the last six months.

Anglin
claims that the November 29th re-do of the AGM attempted to orchestrate
a predetermine outcome by granting Madeleine Oldershaw a sole privilege
to propose two new motions; a privilege which was not exercisable by any
other Alberta Greens members. Oldershaw’s two motions if passed would
have automatically work-shopped all other motions, and prevented any
constitutional motion from being considered at the AGM re-do.

To
support his claims that the former executive is guilty of attempting to
manipulate and election process to obtain a desired outcome, Anglin
states Oldershaw’s two new motions were going to be submitted to the
membership as pre-seconded. Anglin claims that constitutionally motions
can only be seconded at an assembly, and there is no known democratic
process to pre-second or second a motion before it has been moved.
According to Roberts Rules of Order, Anglin claims that all main motions
submitted to an assembly have equal consideration. Anglin
says Oldershaw’s attempt to propose two new motions, was an omnibus
attempt to attach a subsidiary motion to any other main motion,
effectively killing the motion before it could be lawfully considered on
its own merits. In colloquial terms Anglin says this is called a poison
pill. Anglin claims it was an attempt to thwart consideration of both
his and Erickson’s motions, and it is not legal under Robert’s Rules of
Order.

Anglin also claims
the proposed re-do of the elections of officers was an act of blatant
manipulation. He claims members of the former executive were being
granted access to the membership list while other candidates (Anglin’s
supporters) were going to be denied access to the membership list. I
read an e-mail sent by Crowe to Jensen stating that Crowe could not
supply her with the membership list due to privacy concerns. Anglin
claims that all known organizational elections provide membership list
to the candidates, so they can campaign.

I have to agree with
Anglin’s conclusions on the issuance of membership lists.

Anglin calls the
comments by Nick Burman and others who extol the virtues of democratic
fairness, (I inserted Nick Burman`s name because of his recent post on
this webpage), hypocrites. Anglin says these are the same people who
participated in a secret clandestine meeting in the parking lot, for the
sole purpose of undermining the assembly`s democratic rights. Anglin
noted that Crowe, who had a personal vested interest in the outcome of
the proposed Nov 29th re-do, appointed himself the sole unsupervised
recipient entrusted to validate and collect the ballots for the November
29th re-do. Anglin questioned how anyone who attended the September 27th
AGM in good faith, could possibly trust Crowe to receive the ballots
after what Crowe did to them at the September 27th AGM. Anglin continued
on and said that before the ballots were destroyed the new executive
noted that ballot envelopes were marked in ink as friendly or
unfriendly. Anglin surmises that someone was counting votes based on the
return address. Anglin told me that in regards to the proposed Nov 29th
re-do the only thing missing was to have the Zimbabwe International
Elections Monitoring Team give the Alberta Greens their approval.

I asked to see the
some of the ballots and Anglin told me that all the ballots were
destroyed unopened.

Anglin says it was at
this time he and Jensen filed for an injunction to stop the November
29th re-do of the AGM. Anglin claims that all and any accusations that
he sued to gain control of the party are absolutely false. He claims
that these accusations are being made by people who have little or no
understanding of the law. Read and Stratton were named on the motion
filed with the court because they were wrongly acting as leader and
president of the Alberta Greens. They were not being sued as
individuals; the court action was initiated for the sole purpose of
stopping any further elections until the matter of the September 27 AGM
could be resolved.

I read the court
motion filed at the Queen’s Bench in Red Deer, and I can confirm that
what Anglin is saying is basically accurate. However I can also
understand why some people could easily interpret this motion as a
lawsuit against Read and Stratton.

Anglin claims that
all his conciliatory offers to negotiate a resolution to the September
27th debacle have been rejected or ignored. He claims he can meet with
Brian Mason, David Swann, Paul Hinman, and a number of PC MLAs yet the
opposition in his own party will not meet him. Anglin ads, what does
that say about my opposition? Anglin says that in order to arrive at a
resolution both sides must be willing to meet.

I have not seen any
documented evidence from the former executive claiming to ask for or set
a meeting with Anglin or his executive, to negotiate a settlement. I
have seen much empirical evidence to make me conclude the opposite is
true.

Anglin claims that
the former executive engaged immediately, on the afternoon of September
27, 2008, in disparaging attacks on him personally. I have read the two
e-mails from Read on September 27th and the posting on the Green Party
website. In my opinion both Anglin and Read suffered from over
sensitivity on that day. However, the personal attacks against Anglin,
posted on the Alberta Greens website soon after the AGM, accusing Anglin
of spamming pornography is inexcusable, and this in my opinion (and that
of many others) is cause for a libel and defamation law suit.

In conclusion, an
election can only be nullified when the rules governing an election are
so egregiously violated as to cause an objective person to conclude the
violation change the outcome of the election. In my opinion Anglin is
guilty of manipulating the election process. He admits it. But he did so
within the context of the Alberta Greens constitution. I am not
condoning his actions but the real problem can be found in the fact that
the Alberta Greens constitution was wholly inadequate. I blame Anglin
and particularly Erickson for being the cause of this upheaval. I blame
the entire former executive for making the whole matter worse. There are
no do-overs or re-dos just because someone doesn’t like the outcome of
the election. The former executive members’ actions were outside the
context of the Alberta Greens constitution. I wonder just how the former
executive would be behaving now if they had stayed at the AGM and won
the day, and Anglin wanted to re-do the AGM again so he could bring more
people out to vote?

Lawrence Porter is
correct in his definition of democracy, but once the process begins,
changing the rules midstream always causes more problems. If the process
is unfair change the process! But don’t condemn people for playing by
the rules.

This situation called
for maturity and leadership and not one member of the former executive
has provided any evidence of either qualities. In my opinion this was a
perfect storm of a bunch of children who couldn’t get along in the sand
box. I am sad and angry that the incapability’s of so few could cause so
much harm to so many. I can only describe the narrow thinking that
brought us to this point as selfish.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION
In my opinion the dispute concerning whether or not the financial
information was properly transferred is a classic example of cognitive
dissonance. Anglin says the information was never transferred and Crowe
says he gave Anglin the information. For the life of me I cannot see why
this discussion continues. The agreement signed between Crowe and Anglin
stipulated that Crowe was to have turned over all the financial
information and provide a certification that all the information was
true and accurate, on the date of execution of the agreement.

I have no explanation
for Crowe’s actions and so called justifications. The burden of proof to
demonstrate good faith is on Crowe. Unless Crowe can produce a receipt
for turning over the information -- no proof exists that the information
has been turned over. The answer is that simple.

Each side has lawyers
acting on their behalf so I just can’t fathom what the problem is and
why it has not been resolved. The agreement between the both parties in
this matter states that Crowe must turn over the financial information
on execution of the agreement. In addition Crowe was to have certified
that the financial information was true and accurate. Despite Crowe’s
claim that he turned over the financial information; all evidence
contradicts his statement and the evidence that Crowe relies upon to
prove that he complied with the agreement is unacceptable.

The following
responses are my response to the statements posted on Crowe’s his
website.• It is important to note that:
• The new executive did in fact access the data I provided but did not
provide the essential files, including the actual MYOB financial
database, to the accountant.

I cannot find any
empirical evidence to substantiate this claim. As a matter of fact I
find cogent evidence that the new executive continually claimed they
could not access the data files and could not get access to the
electronic files.

• The new executive
only contacted me once regarding missing information, and that was for
the username and password to access a third party credit card processing
website (IATS) that I had forgotten to give them. This was provided
within a few hours.

This statement is
contradicted by numerous documents and records confirming that the new
executive’s lawyer contacted Crowe’s lawyer, Jenuth, by e-mail,
telephone, and official correspondences several times. The IATS account
was finally turned over May 11; five months after the requests for this
information became demands. I read copies of the e-mails and of the
official correspondence confirming these requests and demands.

I also read two
correspondences (December 6th and March 15th) from Crowe where Crowe
wrote that he would only assist the new executive for $200 per hour.
Both correspondences appear to be in response (or non-response) to at
least two separate requests for financial information. I cannot explain
why Crowe would claim the new executive only contacted him once when his
own correspondence evidences two requests for financial information.
That aside, all the correspondence between lawyers certainly is
consistent with the fact that Anglin continually claimed the electronic
financials were not turned over.

• The new executive
did NOT contact me to ask me for any financial files or membership
records at any time.

I refer to my
previous answer, and in fact, I read a letter sent to Jenuth dated
January 6, 2009 noting that the items in the box were not accompanied by
any documents confirming the inventory of included files, documents,
records, and/or party paraphernalia. Other official letters requesting
or demanding that the electronic files and membership list be turned
over to the new executive were sent on December 31, 2008; January 13,
2009; February 5, 2009; and March 31, 2009. Demands specifically
included a request for the financial data to be delivered to the new
Green Party executive on a CD.

• The new executive
were given both electronic and paper copies of a letter listing all the
physical documents turned over to them, and all passwords, and other
information including the existence of a large electronic archive. They
were requested to sign and return this letter to me, the former CFO,
when they had verified the contents. They never did this.

The new executive
claimed they did not receive any letter listing all the physical
documents to be turned over to them (see previous statement), and only
after three attempts to acquire an inventory list did Jenuth provide an
electronic copy. Once the new executive received an electronic copy of
an inventory list of what should have been turned over, the new
executive’s lawyer, Kurata, wrote Jenuth on February 5, 2009 to inform
him that the electronic files had still not been turned over.

• This trial balance
PDF file was in the same ZIP archive as the full MYOB file. The only way
that the accountant could have obtained this file is if the new
executive downloaded the ZIP archive. Possession of the PDF file by the
accountant proves that the new executive also possessed the MYOB
accounting file.

Evidence suggests
this statement is not true. Anglin provided me with a copy of an e-mail
dated November 27, 2008 between Anglin and Kurata, confirming the
transfer by Jenuth of the trial balance PDF file to Kurata on the 26th
of November. I also read several documents dated in the month of
December that referenced the trial balance PDF file. All these
correspondences are dated before Crowe’s uploaded the ZIP file on
December 23rd.

In an e-mail between
Kurata and Jenuth dated January 13, 2009; Anglin specifically made a
request to set up a face to face meeting for January 15th to facilitate
the transfer of the financial information. In subsequent communications
following the January 13th e-mail, Jenuth informs Kurata that the trial
balance PDF file e-mailed to Kurata on the 26th of November is a copy of
the entire ZIP file that Anglin and Kurata claim they cannot access.

Anglin claims that
the box containing the documents turned over by Jenuth was inventoried
by all the members of the new executive, in the presence of their
lawyer. Letters began almost immediately claiming the electronic files
were not turned over and demands were made to have the electronic files
burned on a CD. Anglin states he did not get the required files, or the
certification, as required by the agreement. Nowhere on Crowe’s webpage
does Crowe offer any explanation or evidence of certifying the
correctness of the files.

OTHER INFORMATION

In an e-mail dated
January 3rd between David Crowe and Susan Stratton, Crowe states in
regards to turning over the First Calgary bank account; Crowe said and I
quote, “I could turn over signing authority. I’m not doing anything
until I’m asked.” This e-mail was written more than a week after Crowe
was required and compelled to turn over all financial information
according to the signed agreement.

On May 6, 2009 David
Crowe telephoned the Alberta Greens’ auditor without disclosing that the
conversation was being tape recorded. Crowe then posted the tape
recorded conversation on the internet.

After the firm of
Meyers Norris Penny was made aware of the tape recorded conversation
posted on the internet; a meeting was called with the Alberta Greens’
executive and its lawyer. Meyers Norris Penny found Crowe’s action to be
offensive and noted that the recorded conversation could be
misrepresented because parts of the conversation were omitted. In
response to Crowe’s actions, MNP wrote a letter to Election Alberta
withdrawing as the auditor for the Alberta Greens.

On May 11, 2009 Crowe
wrote an e-mail to a member of the Alberta Greens stating that Anglin
lost the financial documents that Crowe turned over, and as result Crowe
was withholding the files until a new executive was elected. This e-mail
is a clear contradiction to claims that Crowe complied with the
settlement agreement.

In summary....Why?

Crowe only needed to
give the entire file to his lawyer, along with an accompanying letter
certifying the accuracy of the information to comply with his agreement,
and then demand a receipt. This would have ended this story! I have to
believe there would have been less effort required to give MNP the MYOB
file than the effort Crowe spent tape recording MNP without their
knowledge. The fact that MNP wrote Elections Alberta and claimed Crowe
omitted parts of the conversation, constitutes a public condemnation of
Crowe’s actions. Crowe’s behaviour is reprehensible. He discredited
himself and the party, not to mention that he also displayed a complete
lack of integrity when he taped recorded the auditor.

The transfer of the
financial information is part of the settlement agreement to bring
closure to an existing motion before the Court of the Queen’s Bench.
This is a legal matter that is contractual. There has to be a paper
trail in place to document each step of the execution of the agreement.
Inferring that since Anglin has a copy of the trial balance PDF file,
“proves that the new executive also possessed the MYOB accounting file”,
is just not acceptable, and certainly not after so many requests and
demands were made calling for the delivery of the financial information.
Well into April, Jenuth’s own correspondences confirm he was cognizant
and aware that Kurata and Anglin did not have access to the information.

The failure to turn
over the financial information is Crowe’s responsibility. Even if Crowe
turned over the information on December 23rd, as he has declared, it his
responsibility to respond to the requests and statements claiming the
information was not received. The power and ability to end this
controversy was always Crowe’s to exercise. Rather than just call for a
face-to-face meeting, as Anglin had already done on January 13th , and
turn over the information required; Crowe engaged in series of
unexplainable complex actions that required far more energy than if had
just turned over the information.

As I stated in the
beginning all Crowe needed to do is was to bring the information to his
lawyer’s office and have it all inventoried, under his supervision. Once
the file was inventoried the file should have been turned over for a
signed receipt.

Regarding
de-registration of the party, the documents I have reviewed have
resulted in some very disturbing matters coming to light. Anglin claims
the party was unofficially de-registered to avoid public embarrassment.
The official version is that the party was deregistered because it could
not comply with the financial reporting provisions required by Sec 42(1)
of the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act.

Anglin says two
factors weighed heavily in the executive’s decision to acquiesce to
de-registration; the new executive had lost all confidence that Crowe
would comply with the agreement and hand-over the financial information
so that the party could file an annual financial return. Failure to file
an annual return is cause for forcible de-registration. And the
resignation of MNP as the auditor resulted in MNP making a statement
that they would never consider auditing the Alberta Greens without first
completing a full forensic audit of the present and past financial
filings. A full forensic, Anglin said, audit would cost six figures in
accounting fees. MNP can confirm this broad assumption.

MNP’s requirement
mandating a forensic audit is directly attributed to several other
disclosures that discredited the party’s financial record keeping. I was
shown documents that indicate that some of these disclosures also
subject the party to possible criminal charges.

On February 7, 2009
in a meeting with Elections Alberta, Lorne Gibson’s, the Chief Electoral
Officer, legal counsel informed Anglin that two loans, one made by
Stratton and the other by Crowe, on February 8, 2008 violated the
Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act and are cause to
recommend prosecution. The loans raised additional concerns after close
examination of the loan documents revealed that Crowe approved his own
loan by authorizing the contract with altered signatures. Anglin claims
this in itself is not illegal but it raises serious questions about
motive. Crowe also approved Stratton’s loan.

I read a letter where
the new executive was advised by its counsel that repayment authorized
and effected by the present executive would condone the earlier act of
the Party borrowing from Crow and Stratton. Kurata further advised that
the repayment of the outstanding debt to Crowe and Stratton, when it is
ascertained, is a matter which the Chief Electoral Officer must
deliberate upon, and the determination of repayment is a matter wholly
beyond the discretion of the current Party executive.

Statements provided
by two former executive members confirm that there was no approval
process conducted to approve the loans and neither member was aware that
7% interest was being paid out to Crowe and Stratton. I was specifically
asked not to disclose the names of the former two executives.

Anglin says the loans
created even further complications for the party when they became the
object of a preliminary criminal investigation. I was shown documents
that revealed that the loans were not disclosed on the 2008 election’s
return and that signed “Statements of Disclosure” by Susan Stratton and
David Crowe; addressed to the Auditor Michael L. Doyle, raise
significant questions regarding the accuracy of the financial
information being presented for audit.

Anglin claims this
document, the statement of disclosure, was a death sentence to the
party. Anglin told me that once it was revealed that information was
withheld from the auditor (deliberate or not); no auditor, in his or
hers right mind, would undertake to audit the Alberta Greens with
anything less than a full forensic audit. Anglin says the party just
can’t afford an auditor charging from $150-$400 an hour, to spend hours
on end trying to verify $7.50 and $10 entries.

Anglin claims that
all the efforts he and other spent trying to obtain the electronic files
from Crowe seemed to now be wasted. He says that even if Crowe were to
turn the records over now, the possibility that the records would raise
more questions than less is highly probable.

To support his claim,
Anglin refers to the following events and list of entries and
information obtained from the PDF trial balance sent to Kurata on
November 26, 2008. Anglin claims this information raised the concerns of
the former auditor.

On March 25, 2009
Crowe filed a complaint with Elections Alberta and disclosed a list of
possible party donors requiring tax receipts. This information was
forwarded to the new executive and the list of names revealed that a
number of individuals referenced on Crowe’s list of donors could not
confirm the accuracy of the amount of their donation recorded. Some
people disputed or denied making a donation, some donations were
misrepresented and should have been filed as an election donation, and
still other individuals claimed that their donation check was never
cashed. The party lawyer, Kurata document each case referenced above.

Information
transferred to the new executive (the Nov 23, 2008 PDF trial balance)
indicates there are two accounts identified as “Donated Goods and
Services”. One account shows unexplained or unsupported activity of
approximately $14,000 and the latter shows absolutely no activity.

Current records in
the party’s possession reveal that a significant amount of the
documentation of receipts necessary (50% +) for reconciling the 2008
expenditures are missing or have not been made available.

Former president
Susan Stratton and former leader George Read expended $2546.26 of the
Green Party’s funds on legal expenses. There is no accompanying
documentation to support the expenditure.

Honorarium
representing payments of income to non-executive members of the Green
Party are not reconcilable. The individuals involved are unresponsive to
inquiries, and requests for supporting documentation have gone
unanswered.

Honorarium
representing a payment of income in the amount of $13,440 to George Read
should have been reversed prior to the transition of the leadership.
This accounting entry and execution, agreed upon by all parties, was not
completed by Crowe and there is no supporting information available to
reconcile the accounting for the $13,440.

Anglin threw up his
hands at this point and asked me how I would act if I were and an
independent auditor? He said, he and the executive are obligated to
disclose everything to an auditor. And as soon as it is disclosed that a
major accounting firm such as MNP is mandating a forensic audit, and
given the silliness of Crowe’s tape-recorded entrapment of the previous
auditor, would I dare attempt to certify an audit based on Crowe’s word
or work?

I will save my answer
to this question for the end of this report.

I asked Anglin about
the incorporation of the party and the necessity to incorporate. He
laughed at me and said the issue of incorporation sums up the entire
former executive intelligence in one bizarre ironic twist.

Anglin claims the
issue of not being incorporated was a major concern in December 2008
because legislation specifically required the registration of a
corporate entity, before party status could be granted.

Anglin says, at this
time, the legal questions confronting the Alberta Greens were two fold.
If the corporate entity did not exist, (keeping in mind only a corporate
entity can apply for status as a political party), how could the party
exist? The second question involved the relevance of the corporate
entity GAIA. GAIA was the corporate entity on record that had originally
applied for party status back in the early 1990’s. The possibility of
requesting a “grandfathering” exemption for GAIA was dismissed as an
option, because the former executive did not transfer control of GAIA,
and Services Alberta’s, the agency that governs incorporation, rules and
regulations have been updated. Services Alberta currently mandates that
a political party’s name must be exactly the same as its corporate
entity.

The Alberta Greens
membership was given this information at a General Meeting held on
January 21, 2009. At this meeting, it was conveyed to the General
Membership that a forced de-registration was a real possibility, and
that de-registration could be imminent. A special resolution was passed
at the January meeting granting the new executive the authority to
address the issue of incorporation, and incorporate if possible, and/or
convene a special general meeting on short notice should time allow. I
read the minutes of the January general meeting to confirm this was
accurate.

Anglin says that at
the February 7, 2009 meeting with Elections Alberta’s Chief Electoral
Officer, Lorne Gibson, the question of the corporate registration was
resolved. All parties agreed that it appeared the Act did not anticipate
the dissolution of a corporate entity without first dissolving the
political entity. In conclusion, the Act does not provide any direction
beyond the initial requirement mandating that an entity incorporate
prior to making an application for party registration. While this
interpretation clarified Elections Alberta’s responsibility, it did not
address any of the organizational concerns relative to legal liabilities
and contractual obligations.

Anglin told me that
legislation spans multiple jurisdictional authorities governed by
multiple legislative acts, not limited to “The Business Corporations
Act”, “The Companies Act”,” The Partnerships Act”, and “The Societies
Act”, to name but a few! Elections Alberta, Anglin said, is primarily
concerned with the “Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act”,
and they are content to let their concerns stop there.

Anglin then showed me
the corporate documents confirming that the “Alberta Greens” the Green
Party of Alberta Society was incorporated on February 25, 2009.

Anglin then produced
a document that both shocked and horrified me. Anglin told me that while
people such as Lawrence Porter, and other members of the former
executive were publically denouncing Anglin about how wrong he is about
the necessity to incorporate, some of them must have forgotten that they
engaged in the creation of a false document to prove the party was
incorporated.

Anglin gave me a copy
of a document signed by Oldershaw, Read, Stratton, and Crowe dated June
12, 2008. The document was a corporate resolution designed or
constructed to prove the Alberta Greens were incorporated according to
“The Business Corporations Act”.

The statement just
above the document signature line states, and I will reprint exactly
what I am reading on the document, “Resolution passed by all the
directors of the Corporation pursuant to the Business Corporations Act
(Alberta) as evidence by their signatures.”

After I studied this
document I was speechless. Anglin in disgust said, “Can you believe
these people?” “They are all over the internet with e-mails and public
postings claiming that the party does not need to be incorporated, and
all the while they are making this argument as if they are knowledgeable
and informed on the subject, when in fact they created and signed this
document because it was a requirement to prove they were incorporated.”

The document in
question boasts compliance pursuant to the Business Corporations Act and
appears to be constructed to misrepresent the party’s status as a
corporate entity for the purpose of entering into an agreement with the
ING Bank.

Anglin says there are
numerous Legislative Acts that address false documents, forgery, and
fraud in addition to the criminal code, however, the Business
Corporations Act specifically addresses the issue of false and
misleading documents in Sec:251(1) where if a person who makes or
assists in making a report, return, notice or other document is found
guilty of making an untrue statement of a material fact is subject to a
fine of not more than $5000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more
than 6 months or to both.

Anglin said the issue
of de-registration became a fore gone conclusion. The people who signed
some of these documents may or may not be prosecuted. He says this is
now beyond the control of the internal matters of the Green Party.Anglin
claims to be cooperating with the authorities, and he says the Alberta
Greens may also be charged because of the actions of the former
executive do not necessarily absolve or vindicate the organization.

Anglin
philosophically told me that there is no good reasons for a PC member of
this government, to have a prosecution of the Green Party go forward.
Politically he says, it would be better for them to prosecute the Green
Party after its first MLA gets elected not before.

Last but not least
Anglin provided me with a tape recorded telephone conversation between
Jensen and Crowe dated November 12, 2008 at 11:03 PM. The conversation
references an earlier conversation that took place at 7:56 AM from Crowe
to Jensen.

The recording I
listened to lasted approximately 20 minutes. I am speechless to comment
on what I heard and how Crowe so casually explained away the contents of
the phone conversation previously on this Facebook page. The
conversation I listen to centered on the topic of extortion and
blackmail. I did not hear one word discussing any offers for possible
negotiations. I listen to this tape recording three different times.

I also listened to a
taped recorded executive meeting where Midge Lambert forcible argued
with multiple members of the former executive to get Crowe to answer
questions about the phone calls. I was struck by how callous some former
members handled Lambert`s questions and how easily they carried on after
Lambert hung-up on the conference call. The behaviour of the former
executive indicates to me that they may have had some previous knowledge
of Lambert’s complaint.

I read a copy of a
prepared draft motion and accompanying affidavit that has not been filed
with the Court of the Queen’s Bench. The motion, if filed is going seek
civil action against Crowe for an extortion attempt. Anglin says he has
two years from the date of the offense to file.

Whenever I attempt to
reason logically on this Facebook page I notice a certain bias and even
hostility. I said in the beginning that I have supported and voted for
the Green Party in the past because I believe in the fundamental
principles and philosophies of the party. I chose to do my own
investigation of the Alberta Greens’ de-registration solely because I
wanted to satisfy myself that everything was being done to save the
party. If I could help save the party I was prepared to do whatever
needed to be done.

I had access to a lot
more information than what I have commented on here. As I posted earlier
Anglin was polite and quite candid. He answered every questioned I posed
and provided me with empirical evidence to support his comments when I
asked to see the documents. I believe him when he says he wanted to grow
this party.

What I discovered is
that no one can claim innocence, but I am particularly disgusted with
the actions of a few former executive members and some of the people
posting on this Facebook page. I believe this situation tumbled out of
control because of pride and stupidity. I wish Anglin did not do what he
did to begin this chain of events. But I do not excuse the actions of
some former executive members that kept driving the nails into the
Alberta Greens coffin.

In summary, Anglin’s
very first communication to Crowe on the morning of the 28th of
September could not have been more accurate. Anglin e-mailed Crowe and
said,

“We are at a very
important precipice at this very moment in time. There is still time we
can resolve this issue, and create something positive, but that can only
occur if we talk. We must do it sooner than later!” “You are in a very
precarious position as CFO, and I do not want you to be put in a
position that could possibly harm your credibility. We desperately need
to speak to one another! This can be resolved if we talk!”

Anglin begged to talk
in nearly two dozen e-mails sent that very first week after the
September 27th AGM. He predicted that the longer this went on the worse
the situation would get. His offer to resign and hold a leadership race
was certainly one of the best offers put forth as a resolution. I can
find no counter offer or alternative offer made by the former executive.

I could rant on and
on but it will do me no good! This party is truly dead so let the
Alberta Greens epitaph read “Died by Stupidity” and for the sake of the
Green Party of Canada I hope everyone stays away from it, lest you
infect that party too.

What you are choosing
to ignore David is that you claim on your website that:

• The new executive
did NOT contact me to ask me for any financial files or membership
records at any time.

Yet in the
communication you just posted it is clear you are responding to a
request that Anglin didn’t have the information. You have contradicted
yourself!

There are also the
numerous communications after January 13th from Kurata to Jenuth
claiming that they couldn’t get access to the information reaching well
into April. Two of the communications demanded that you turn over the
information on CDs because the passwords you provided did not work.

Again, none of this
matters! I refer you to the agreement between yourself and Anglin. It
was your responsibility to turn the information over with a
certification that the information was true and accurate. It was not
Anglin’s responsibility to go get the information. You fail to recognize
the obligation you undertook when you signed the agreement.

I have deleted my two
postings because I have realized that you are not listening and you do
not care about facts (e.g. it is true that we had communications about
the bank accounts, PO box etc and it is true that I sent email about the
financial documents to Connie several times. It is not true that I ever
received any messages about missing financial documents from them except
for one message regarding a missing username and password).

If Joe Anglin
seriously believes all the slanderous things about me he should say them
himself and not use messengers.

I will no longer
respond to hearsay.

P.S. You claim to
have been a long time supporter yet my recollection is that you never
donated to the part or were a member. Is my recollection correct?

Retaining these posts
on Facebook will be an indication that you stand behind the truth of
what you said here.

It is called
cognitive dissonance David. And I think you removed your post because it
contradicts your website. But that is my opinion.

When a communication
is sent from your lawyer to Anglin’s lawyer or vice-versa, it is if you
directly communicated yourself. So if you are thinking that you can take
a position that you are not responsible because you are not aware any
communications between your lawyer and Anglin’s lawyer; you will have to
take that matter up with your lawyer. When you hire a lawyer to speak
for you, that is exactly what takes place.

• P.S. You claim to
have been a long time supporter yet my recollection is that you never
donated to the part or were a member. Is my recollection correct?

Read my post and you
will see I already answered your question about donating, and I was not
a member in Alberta, and never claimed I was, but what makes you think I
wasn’t a member in another province?

What I think is that
you have selective recollection, so I think you are only selectively
correct. Attack me all you want but I noticed Anglin didn’t attack me
once when I presented all the accusation I collect on this website. I
asked him a lot tougher questions and he answered every question I posed
to him.

What I posted, I
obtained from the documents given to me. I would not have posted what I
did if I did not read the documents myself. I quoted Anglin where I
could and I paraphrased my conversation with him as best I could. The
opinions and summations are mine.

Paul you couldn’t
have been a member in another province. The Alberta Greens was a
political party with no ties to any other political party. I’m not
saying this is the case with you, but it’s a common misconception that
the federal GPC is tied to provincial green parties.

In my original
comments I said, “I have supported and voted for the Green Party in the
past because I believe in the fundamental principles and philosophies of
the party.” Feel free to reread my post.

If I expressed that
in such a way that you and David mistook that to mean my support was
only limited to the Alberta Greens or the Green Party of Canada. I hope
you will forgive me and not find fault that I believe in the fundamental
principles and philosophies of the party. I have supported the “Green
Party”, for quite a long time.

Is this really an
issue? There is a criminal investigation underway and the Alberta
Greens, particularly the former executive, are at the center of the
investigation and the best you can contribute to the topic is to
question the origins of my support for the Green Party?

I read so much on
this Facebook page. I read all your attacks on Anglin, and I was
somewhat sympathetic to all your posts, but when I sat down with Anglin
and started to question him, he did not hesitate to answer my questions.
He followed it up with documented evidence. What more can I say.

As a suggestion you
might want to tone down your patronizing just a little. Forged
documents, fraud, embezzlement, attempted extortion, illegal loans, and
the party is de-registered, can anyone paint an uglier picture of what
went on?

It just a suggestion,
but someone may just want to contact Anglin and see the evidence for
themselves.

I’m contributing
information that matters to the forming of a new provincial green party.
It’s important to know that provincial green parties are not linked
directly to the federal GPC. This has ramifications during policy and
platform development... as well as fallout from debacles such as the one
you are discussing. The GPC has rightly kept its hands out of this mess
and wisely so.

I appreciate you
sharing with the world the information you’ve gathered. I believe
information like this should be presented to interested members of the
public. That’s why I have not contacted Anglin or Jensen. I don’t like
back room talks.

I am concerned about
the well being of the members of the former and former former executive.
I don’t feel the need to compound their stress levels by joining the
lineup of people wanting to find out the “truth” from the horses’
mouths. Flogging dead horses will not get green politics back on track
in this province. I just hope everyone’s learned from their mistakes and
will move on to advance a green party in AB in the near future.

Back room talks are
commonly known as secretive meetings, such as the meeting held in the
parking lot at the Sept 27th AGM or the executive meeting that excluded
Anglin from attending on September 22nd 2008. Those would be defined as
back room talks.

Direct talks are
defined as going directly to the source so as not to rely upon someone
else interpretation of the events or facts. The talks that have occurred
on this web page, particularly the comments directed at Anglin border on
bigotry. At least it refreshing to see you admit you do not see the need
to find out the truth. Refreshing but sad!

The comment that you
are concerned about the well being of the former executive would be more
credible if only you had exercised the same concern when you and others
so freely engaged in opprobrious remarks about Anglin.

Getting at the truth
is not same as flogging a dead horse. The Green Party of Alberta cannot
get registered again until this is reconciled. You or anyone else who
thinks they can restart, or start up a Green Party in Alberta will be in
for a rude awakening when you try. The problem just doesn’t go away.
Regardless of any criminal charges, any former member can sue the former
executive for breach of fiduciary trust. Forging false documents makes
it very difficult for one to claim they have exercised their fiduciary
duty properly.

There are also five
liberal candidates and one NDP who can claim damages against a Green
party that ran candidates with the use of illegal loans.

To be honest Paul I
havent had time to rumage through all the information you have provided
- Although Im glad you did. I will get around to it very soon. They are
some very long posts and im trying to keep up on the discussion.

I would like to hear
an argument that would allow the six candidates who lost their seats
during the last election because of their failure to get out THEIR vote.
Have you looked at the results from these ridings? The PC won because
they increased their vote - No doubt that helps you win a riding!

You have to prove all
candidates in these electoral constituents have had their candidacy
funded by these loans. Do you have proof of this? I cant look where the
executive sent money during the last election but I have to wonder how
much of the deposits were funded by central when both Edwin and Joe
received over $10 000 dollars from transfers from central. If these two
loans were a substantial part of election expenses then Central put
almost all of their eggs in two baskets by giving Joe and Edwin an
amount more than the loans! Question to past executive (hopefully you
can answer): How many candidate deposits were funded by the central
organization?

You also have to
prove that they would win in the event these candidates did not run.
This is beyond the possible unless you track down every green voter and
ask what they had done if their was no green candidate for the area. I
have already posted on this matter. For the most part these opposition
candidates lost in large part due to an increase in PC voters and a (in
some cases) drastic drop in their vote. Do you have proof this was the
fault of the greens?

Do claim that these
candidates can seek damages against the Greens (or people who operated
the party) seems next to impossible to prove. I hope you can prove the
points and have not become a mouth piece with a great deal of talking
points.

The Green Party ran a
campaign with the use of illegal loans. The executive covered up the
loans with a false document and then failed to report the loans on the
election’s return, falsifying the return. Each offense is a punishable
offense, and at least one is a criminal offense. This doesn’t even
address the issue of an attempted extortion.

If the party is found
guilty, the Green Party would be liable because it ran a fraudulent
campaign.

In a civil suit, the
only thing any other campaign or candidate needs to prove is financial
harm caused by these illegal actions. I used the five Liberals and one
NDP as an example because their races were so close, but anyone who can
prove financial harm as a result of the Green party’s illegal actions
has cause. You can hypothesize all you want about who could or could not
claim damages, but you would be better off checking with a lawyer rather
than guessing.

Efforts to circumvent
the damage caused, by justifying where the party distributed a dollar
from an illegal loan verses a dollar from a legitimate donation is
rather pathetic, considering the financial return is erroneous. It’s a
little like robbing a bank and claiming innocence by saying the money
came from your account, because you had enough money on deposit.

Also your facts are
incorrect. Go to Elections Alberta and get a copy of the election
returns. It is public information. The party didn’t give $10,000 to
either Erickson or Anglin. I can’t find the figures at the moment, (I
have them) but I seem to remember the party transferred less than $5,000
total that split between those two candidates and Erickson’s campaign
got the larger amount of the two. What you just posted is incorrect. The
party raised just under 30K total, of which 10,000 was from illegal
loans. I can’t find the individual returns at the moment but I seem to
remember that Erickson and Anglin’s campaigns combined raise almost
double what the party raised.

BTW, if Anglin,
Erickson, or any other Green Party candidate could prove that their
campaigns were damaged by the illegal activity, they could conceivable
hold the party and those responsible for damages. I just do not see how
any Green party candidate could logically claim damages. But I do see
how a donor to the Green Party could claim damages and demand that their
money be returned.

Just as a side not, I
file a FOIP request with Elections Alberta for more information about
the Alberta Greens, and yesterday they denied my request so now I have
to appeal my request. It is amazing what you will find if you ask for
documents!

Lawrence, you and
others now need to answer for some of your statements too. You sent out
a blast e-mail attacking Anglin personally. Where are your facts that
you and others here rely, on to support your attacks of Anglin.

The agreement between
Anglin and Crowe specifically states Crowe must turn over the financial
data with a letter certifying that the financial information is true and
correct? He was supposed to turn it over on the day of execution of the
agreement. He didn’t do either. He posted the information on a password
protected website that Anglin and his lawyer could not access and
Anglin’s lawyer continually communicated that to Crowe’s lawyer.

You so proudly
attacked Anglin over the need to incorporate, but there is a document
signed by Oldershaw, Stratton, Crowe, and Read. The document falsely
claims the party was incorporated according to the “Business
Incorporations Act”. If the party was not incorporated this now becomes
a forged document. Why do this, if the party does not need to be
incorporated?

You support Crowe on
your petition but here we find the party ran 21 candidates in the 2008
election that were not members of the party. In the 2008 election, three
executive members of the Alberta Greens were not members of the party.
Over .33 cents of every election dollar spent was obtained through two
illegal loans, (Check with elections Alberta). Crowe approved his own
loan, subjecting himself to embezzlement allegations, and two former
members of the Executive Board dispute Crowe’s claims the executive
approved the loans. The loans were covered up in a false document signed
by Crowe and Stratton to the accountant Doyle, and then the loans were
not reported (another offense) on the elections return. Crowe taped
recorded the new auditor who wrote a letter to Elections Alberta
complaining the tape-recorded conversation was posted on the internet
omitting part of the conversation. Crowe, Burman, and Oldershaw like to
boast Anglin is incompetent, but due to their leadership the party is
now being subjected to a criminal investigation to include fraud,
forgery, issuing false documents, embezzlement, and extortion.

Having been taken
aback by Mr. Crowe’s response regarding a possible threatening telephone
call last November to party president Ms. Jensen, I have stayed quiet
until I could learn for myself the nature of his telephone call. Mr.
Crowe, you said that you called Ms. Jensen to try to negotiate. I have
spoken with Ms. Jensen. A five minute call at approximately 8:00 a.m. in
which you read to her some wild, defamatory statements about Joe Anglin;
in which you threatened to take these statements to the Calgary Herald
for them to “research; ” in which you gave Ms. Jensen and Joe Anglin 24
hours to withdraw their legal action against Ms. Stratton and George
Read in order to avoid your taking that information to the Herald; and
finally, which you terminated by hanging up on Ms. Jensen. Please, Mr.
Crowe. How is this “negotiation?”

Ms. Jensen, btw,
immediately filed a report with the Calgary Police and later that day
returned the call to you, acting on advice she received. I have heard
that call. Her call to you lasted about 20 minutes, and was not
terminated by her hanging up on you. However, it does corroborate the
threats you made to her in the morning.

In your response
regarding this issue, you stated something to the effect that you knew
your attempts at “negotiation” would be used against you.
In the business, they probably have several terms for the kind of spin
you are attempting here. “Passive aggressive” comes to mind.

The other thing that
comes to mind is that if you are willing to play with the truth so
blatantly concerning your telephone call, what other truths are you
stretching?

I had a couple beers
with one of Eriksons carpenters on saturday nite. He said the phone call
came on Eriksons cell phone not on Colleen Jensens. He said Erikson
wanted him to tastify in court but he said he didnt want to get mixed up
in it. But he said one of the other carpenters said he was going to
tastify. He said Jensen was staying with Erikson in Lethbridge when they
was working there.